MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume IV, Issue 408, 2 October 1875, Page 2

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Saturday, October 2. [Before G. L. Hellish, Esq., R.M.]

Drunk and Disorderly.— Margaret McGuire, for drunkenness, wasjfined 10s. Hector Beaton, for being drunk and using obscene language, was fined 20s ; and P. A. Swanson, for drunkenness, ss. Lunacy from Drink. —John Spink, who had been remanded on this charge for eight days, and was now recovered, was discharged with a caution. Embezzlement. —C. W. Worger, who was on bail on two eharges of embezzlement from the Canterbury Club, was brought up again on a further charge, and at the request of Mr Garrick was remanded until Monday, the same bail being accepted until then. Larceny. —Margaret Clark was charged with this. Mounted-constable Bracher stated that a Mrs Morris, on the Stanmore road, had complained to him the previous day of accused having stolen a bonnet from her. Went to look for the accused, and found her in Manchester street wearing the bonnet produced. The accused was not sober when he arrested her. Mrs Morris identified the bonnet produced as her property, valued at 225. Accused had been annoying her, and when she (witness) went for the police she found the things in the house upside down, and the bonnet gone. From the statement of the accused it appeared that she is the mother of the prosecutrix. Inspector Buckley said that the mother when drunk was constantly annoying her daughter, who desired to live quietly. Several previous charges of larceny were proved against the accused, and she was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment with hard labour.

Sheep Stealing. —William Jackson answered to his bail on the charge of stealing fifty-four sheep, the property of George Marsh, of Templeton. Mr Wynn Williams appeared for the accused. Detective Kirby, examined, said—On Thursday last I went with George Marsh, jun., to Shand’s track. I went into the paddock of accused. Several sheep were pointed out to me by Mr Marsh, and he said they belonged to him and his father, I afterwards went to accused’s house. I told him there were some sheep in his paddock, which were claimed by Mr George Marsh, of Templeton. He said he knew nothing about them. I then went to the paddock with George Marsh, sen., and George Marsh, jun.. Detective Thomson joined us in the paddock. I mustered the sheep and drove them to Mr Overton’s yards. The Messrs Marsh drafted fifty four sheep and claimed them. The other 129 were claimed by Jackson. I took possession of the fifty-four sheep. Jackson’s sheep and those claimed by Mr Marsh were not the same breed. The sheep claimed by Marsh (the fifty-four) were branded -G M in black paint on the side. They had another dark brown brand, which was hardly visible. Jackson’s sheep were branded with a similar brand to the second brand on Marsh’s sheep. 1 then charged Jackson with stealing fiftyfour sheep, the property of Messrs Marsh, of Templeton. The only reply he made was calling my attention to a hole in the fence of the paddock. I went round the paddock and examined the fence. It was a high gorse fence with three wires in places. On the road Jackson said, “I suppose if Mr Marsh gets the sheep he will be satisfied.” This was said between his place and Overton’s paddock, when we were driving the sheep over. I have seen three of the sheep this morning outside the court. By Mr Wynn Williams—When I first saw the sheep I could see the G M on some of the sheep. Mr Marsh told me that was the brand. I swear I could have seen they were branded G M if I hadn’t been told that was Mr Marsh’s brand. I have had some experience in branding sheep in the old country. I see Mr Marsh’s brand in the book produced (G over M). The brand on the sheep is not like that in the book. The G M is in a line. I could have told it was Mr Marsh’s brand on all the fifty-four. The letters of the brand on the sheep were not over one another. The brand on the sheep was black, and looked as if branded about a month or five weeks ago. The brand was a black mixture. The other brand was on the rump and nearly covering the G M. This second brand was a rusty brown. I can’t say whether the longer a brand is on a sheep the lighter and rustier it becomes. The second brand was of different material to the first. I went round the paddock and considered the fence sheep proof. Sheep might get out of it if chased by dogs. Jackson showed me a hole in the fence. Sheep might have got out there. At another portion I examined the fence, and considered it sheep-proof. By the police—The brown brand was uppermost, and must have been put on after the black brand. Detective Thomson gave evidence of having gone to the paddock of the accused with Mr Marsh, junr., on the morning of

29th September. He went afterwards to 1 accused’s house, and told him he thought there were some strange sheep in his paddock, which had got mixed up with his (accused’s). Jackson volunteered to go down to the paddock, but did not come down at the time appointed. The accused afterwards came down with Detective Kirby. The sheep claimed by Jackson were Leicesters, and those by Messrs Marsh were cross-bred merinos. Marsh’s sheep were branded on the flank and side G over M. Several of of the sheep claimed by prisoner had a similar brand. The rusty brown brand appeared in some cases to have been placed over the (1 over M black paint brand. He (witness) had had experience with sheep in the colonies. He had examined the fence of Jackson’s paddock. It was a gorse fence, with a post and three wires. It was in good order. Had seen three of the fifty-four sheep outside the Court this morning. Had taken possession of the sheep the following morning after he had been at accused's place, By Mr Williams—l have had considerale experience with sheep. Jackson’s brand was an old tar brand, now rusty brown. A great many of Mr Marsh’s sheep had a similar brand to that on Jackson’s sheep. His brand might have been only a month old, and defaced by wet weather. I knew the sheep were missing from the 22nd August to the 16th September. I noticed the fence in Mr Marsh’s paddock, where the sheep are supposed to have been stolen from, I consider the fence sheep proof. If 1 heard that Marsh’s sheep had often got out of the paddock on to the road, I should think they had been driven out, I saw Jackson’s fence, and considered sheep could not get out there unless dogged. I do not think Marsh’s sheep could get out of his paddock unless driven. George Marsh, farmer, at Templetou, examined, stated—About the 28th August last I put some sheep into my paddock. There were 220 odd sheep in the mob. The sheep were first cross from merino ewes. Those were branded G over M on the left side with a black mixture of tar and oil. They had also the old brand on them, but that was nearly grown out, and we had re-branded them on the left side when we put them into the paddock, but not particularly on one spot. Some of the brands were fair on the back, and some on the side. I look the sheep down myself, and walked round the fence to see whether it was secure and sheep proof, and found it was so. A tenant named Robt. Marshall was living on the ground in the paddock who kept his eye on the sheep, and I occasionally went down to see them. I missed the sheep on the 17th September, and made enquiries about them, and afterwards reported the loss to the police. From what I heard I went to a paddock on or about Wednesday last, (with the police. It was io Mr Jackson’s, paddock we went, and he (Jackson) was there. 1 claimed some sheep among Jackson’s, and recognised them the moment I saw them. Before I got in the paddock I saw that some of my sheep had been rebranded with a sort of rusty brand similar to that on Jackson’s sheep. Jackson was present at the time. I helped to drive all of the sheep to Overton’s paddock. Mr Jackson wanted us to draft out the sheep in the paddock with his dogs, and put them overjinto the road. When we got them to Overton’s, I claimed fifty-four sheep. Some of them were branded with Jackson’s brand, some of the brands were“smudged, and some not branded. I have seen some of the sheep outside the Court this morning. Jackson’s paddock is not quite two miles from my place. I bred the sheep myself. They were not at all wild, and were not in the habit of straying. I examined Jackson’s fences on the IShand’s track side and the Accommodation road, and from what I saw of them, I should say they were sheep proof I can’t say how my sheep got out of my paddock and into Jackson’s, or whether they were driven out or strayed out. It is very mysterious. I could’t see any place in Jacksou’s fence where the sheep could get through. By Mr Wynn Williams Shortly after missing these sheep, I asked some people about them at the Wheatsheaf, and I got information of two or three little mobs, but they were not mine. At the Wheatsheaf I had a conversation with Mr Frank Marchant, t and I said the sheep could not get out, and must have been driven out, as my tenant kept an eye on the sheep every night at nightfall. Jackson’s paddock is nearly two miles from my place. I do not say that it was Mr Jackson who stole my sheep. I have known Mr Jackson ever since he has been in the country, and I should be very sorry to accuse him of having stolen my sheep. I did not lay the information. (His Worship—There is no information laid.) My sheep outside the Court show Jackson’s brand, IJ, as plainly as the brand on Jackson’s own sheep. Out of the 54 sheep about 14 or 15 have been re-branded. I will swear that this last brand has been put on the sheep since I branded them. This brand is a rusty brown brand. These sheep, being put into the paddock on the 28th August, were on my farm at home. I went to Jackson’s paddock in the police van, and got over the fence into the paddock. I will swear that the sheep could not get through the fence where I got over. 1 did make a remark that if the sheep were stolen it was strange the thief should have left all the six black sheep behind. I examined the brand carefully on Jackson’s sheep. It is the same colour as the brand on my sheep. I lease a paddock from Mr Inwood. Mr Marshall has told me that some of my sheep have strayed on to the road. If I had never seen the sheep outside the court before, 1 could not tell that it was a new brand on them, but I know the brand put over my brand is a new one. [His Worship here went outside the Court at the request of Mr Wynn Williams, and examined the sheep.] Geo Daniel Marsh, son of the last witness, gave corroborative evidence. In cross-examina-tion the witness said he would swear he branded the sheep outside the court G over M. Jackson’s sheep were branded 1 .1, and he would swear any person could see the I. J. on the sheep outside the Court. Jackson’s brand was brown, and he would also sVvear that his own and Jackson’s fences were sheep proof. When the sheep were missed he could not trace any marks of sheep having gone out of the gate, though they had looked carefully for marks. About a week before the sheep had got out of the paddock, but he could not say how they got out. Did not see any tracks at Jackson’s gate, where the sheep would have been driven in. There is a high gorse fence all roynd Jackson’s paddock, where the sheep were. A man could round up a mob of sheep at night time without the man living in the paddock seeing him. From his knowledge of Jackson he would not say whether he was a man, who would go into his

father’s paddock, and take some sheep out. He would swear that though the sheep had strayed out of that paddock into another, the sheep could not get into the road. William Allan, residing with a man named Marshall, in a cottage belonging to Mr Marsh, standing’in a paddock, remembered some sheep belonging to Mr Marsh being placed in the paddock. The paddock was fenced, and there was a gateway. There was an outside and inside paddock ; the house stands in the inside paddock, and the sheep were running there. On the 1 4th September, about half-past five o’clock, he wont through the gate leading into the paddock, where the sheep were. He fastened the gate up after him. There was no one went through the gate afterwards that he saw. During the night he heard the sheep running through the yard, as if they were disturbed. Next morning he remarked this circumstance, and when he went out the fastening was slipped off, and thrown inside, near the well, and the hrudle forming the gate was down. He saw that some of the sheep were missing. So far as he knew Mr Marsh’s sheep had only one brand, which was black. He had seen the sheep outside the Court. When they were in the paddock they were not branded with the brown brand as they were then. To the Bench —If they had been so branded while they were in the paddock he would have noticed it. Examination continued. The sheep of themselves could not have pushed the post down outside and let the hurdle fall inside. By Mr Wyn Williams—The sheep have strayed into another paddock, but I never knew of them having strayed on to the road. I did not get up during the night to see what was going on, as I didn’t think anyone would have come down there to steal sheep. Next morning, when I saw the hurdle down, I did not trace the tracks of the sheep to see the direction they had taken. The sheep could not have got out any other way but by the gate. Noticed the sheep had gone next morning before I made the remark to Marshall. I did not examine the sheep when they came into the paddock, but there was only one brand on them. I know that the sheep outside the Court are Mr Marshall’s, and I could pick his sheep out of any flock. This closed the evidence for the prosecution. Mr Wynn. Williams said if his Worship thought it necessary, he would produce evidence to show that Jackson’s fences were not sheep proof, and that his (Jackson’s) sheep often strayed on to the road. This evidence would disprove many of the statements made by the witnesses for the prosecution. He (Mr Williams) did not think that much reliance could be placed on the evidence of a witness who swore positively that any person could recognize the IJ and G over M brands on the sheep now outside the Court. His Worship said that, having examined the brands himself, he was satisfied which brand bad been put on last. Under all the circumstances, he considered it would be better to send the case for trial. After the evidence had been read over, the accused, by advice of hia counsel, reserved his defence, and was committed to take his trial at the next criminal session of the Supreme Court. Accused waa subsequently admitted to bail. Larceny. —Thomas Henry De Leon waa charged on remand with having stolen one pair of boots from the shop of Mr Clarke, High street, one pair from the shop of Mr Hales, Colombo street, one pair from the shop of Mr Yates, Colombo street, and a watch from Mr A. Arklie of Papanui road. The prisoner admitted the two first offences. Evidence was taken on the watch case, which showed that the prosecutor a few weeks ago was in company with the accused at the British Hotel. He had the watch produced about him at the time, and next morning missed it. The barman at the Q O.E. had a few days ago seen the accused with the watch guard in his pocket, and when he (accused) saw a detective come into the bar of that hotel, he was seen to put the watch and guard down the leg of his trousers, and was it afterwards found a few yards distant from him by the detective. The fourth charge was withdrawn. There were eight previous convictions against the prisoner, and he was sentenced to six month’s imprisonment on each charge, or eighteen mouths in all.